Thank you for your note, but I feel the attention paid to offsetting is misplaced. Look at my recent post on Apple; they do an absolutely amazing job of reducing the carbon emissions from making a computer and then make a big deal of being “carbon neutral”, which anyone can if they buy enough offsets, instead of touting the real work of …
Thank you for your note, but I feel the attention paid to offsetting is misplaced. Look at my recent post on Apple; they do an absolutely amazing job of reducing the carbon emissions from making a computer and then make a big deal of being “carbon neutral”, which anyone can if they buy enough offsets, instead of touting the real work of reducing emissions. We have to focus on what we can do to reduce our own “now” emissions, rather than purchasing offsets that deal with “later” emissions. That is what the Exeter scientists proposed.
What I would say is that it is your own "attention paid to offsetting" that is "misplaced"--you're going in the exactly wrong direction about this. For one thing, offsetting is a very, very small percentage of carbon emissions--very few people or companies offset. We want more of these, not less!
Your article on Apple doesn't make sense to me. For one, how does the behavior of one Verra board member suffice to discredit the whole offsetting system? This is a logical fallacy in your argument--a red herring. A tool of the propagandist.
Second, your claim that we need to "focus on our 'now' emissions rather than our 'later' ones" also makes no sense to me--our "now" emissions stay in the atmosphere for many years. We need to do both. Again, you can't even do this (eliminate emissions) yourself, and you seem to think the whole economy can.
Apple did the right thing--using ecological restoration to drawdown carbon, and closely monitoring that. As to you--you're making the same mistake over and over. Maybe consider taking a break from this issue and writing on other topics?
Thank you for your note, but I feel the attention paid to offsetting is misplaced. Look at my recent post on Apple; they do an absolutely amazing job of reducing the carbon emissions from making a computer and then make a big deal of being “carbon neutral”, which anyone can if they buy enough offsets, instead of touting the real work of reducing emissions. We have to focus on what we can do to reduce our own “now” emissions, rather than purchasing offsets that deal with “later” emissions. That is what the Exeter scientists proposed.
What I would say is that it is your own "attention paid to offsetting" that is "misplaced"--you're going in the exactly wrong direction about this. For one thing, offsetting is a very, very small percentage of carbon emissions--very few people or companies offset. We want more of these, not less!
Your article on Apple doesn't make sense to me. For one, how does the behavior of one Verra board member suffice to discredit the whole offsetting system? This is a logical fallacy in your argument--a red herring. A tool of the propagandist.
Second, your claim that we need to "focus on our 'now' emissions rather than our 'later' ones" also makes no sense to me--our "now" emissions stay in the atmosphere for many years. We need to do both. Again, you can't even do this (eliminate emissions) yourself, and you seem to think the whole economy can.
Apple did the right thing--using ecological restoration to drawdown carbon, and closely monitoring that. As to you--you're making the same mistake over and over. Maybe consider taking a break from this issue and writing on other topics?
Well, writing about this topic certainly generated discussion!